Jharkhand High Court
Jai Prakash Oraon vs Sushma Toppo on 5 January, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Rajesh Kumar, Sujit Narayan Prasad
2026:JHHC:95-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A. No. 254 of 2024
Jai Prakash Oraon, aged about 56 years, son of late Sukru
Oraon,resident of Village-Kisco, Bado Toli, PO and PS Kisco,
DistrictLohardaga. Presently posted in Police Line Head Quarter, PO
and PS Dhurwa, Ranchi, District Ranchi. ..... ...Petitioner/Appellant
Versus
Sushma Toppo, wife of Jai Prakash Oraon, resident of village Bedo, PO
& PS Bedo, District Ranchi. .... ...Respondent/Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON'BLEMR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate;
Mr. Pranav Prakash Mishra, Advocate
---------
04/ Date:05.01.2026 Prayer
1. The instant appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984is directed against the order/judgment dated 05.11.2024 and decree dated 16.11.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in Original Suit No. 18 of 2022, whereby and whereunder, the Suit filed by the appellant under Section 22 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, has been dismissed.
Factual Matrix
2. The brief facts of the case, leading to filing of the petition filed under Section 22 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, by the petitioner/appellant, needs to be referred herein which are as under:
3. The petitioner's [the appellant herein] case, in brief, is that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 14.08.2014 before the Marriage Officer, Lohardaga. After their marriage the respondent went to her matrimonial home situated at village Kisco for sometimes. The respondent 1 F.A. No. 254 of 2024 2026:JHHC:95-DB on the pretext of her studies came back to Ranchi for her study and started living in hostel. The petitioner borne all her educational, fooding and lodging expenses.
4. The respondent completed her B.Ed and was appointed as Teacher in Government High School situated at Harhaji, Bero. It is stated that after getting job the respondent started living at her parental home but due to differences with her brother she shifted to a rented house. It is further stated that after getting job, behaviour of respondent changed drastically and she started ignoring the petitioner and taunted the petitioner that he is simply a cook in Police Headquarter and she is a teacher, so, she cannot live with him.
5. It is also stated that the first wife of the petitioner Fekan Devi died leaving behind a son Karam Chandra Oraon, who is aged about 25 years. The petitioner tried to convince the respondent over phone but she blocked the mobile numbers of the petitioner. Thereafter, he went to the house of the respondent several times and persuaded her to come with him and lead conjugal life with him but she did not agree.
6. On 4.11.2021 the petitioner along with his brother went to the house of respondent for "Bedai" but the respondent pick up brick in her hand, threatened to kill and refused to come and reside with the petitioner. The respondent is posted as Teacher in Harhaji Madhya Vidyalay, Bero, Ranchi since 2019. The petitioner is posted in Police Line Head Quarter Ranchi since 2018. The petitioner is ready and willing to keep his wife. Therefore, a suit has been filed seeking decree of restitution of conjugal right in favour of petitioner.
2 F.A. No. 254 of 2024
2026:JHHC:95-DB
7. The learned Family Judge has issued notice upon the respondent-wife, who appeared and filed written statement admitting the factum of marriage with the petitioner-appellant. Thereafter, altogether six issues have been framed by the learned Family Judge which are as follows:
(i) Whether the present suit is maintainable in its present form?
(ii) Whether the petitioner has valid cause of action to file the present suit?
(iii) Whether the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner?
(iv) Whether the respondent-wife without any reasonable excuse withdrew herself from the society and company of the petitioner-
husband?
(v) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get decree of restitution of conjugal right?
(vi) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get any other equitable relief or reliefs as prayed for?
8. The evidences have been laid on behalf of both the parties. The petitioner husband had examined himself as P.W.1 and further on his behalf another witnesses namely Krishna Oraon has been examined as P.W.2.
9. On behalf of the respondent two witnesses had been examined including herself as R.W.1 and further Sister of Respondent namely Nathky Toppo, had been examined as R.W.2.
3 F.A. No. 254 of 2024
2026:JHHC:95-DB
10. After appreciation of the evidences, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi vide judgment dated 05.11.2024 has dismissed the suit by holding that the respondent wife has withdrawn herself from the society of her husband/petitioner due to sufficient reasons.
11. The appellant husband being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment dated 05.11.2024 [decree signed on 16.11.2024] passed in Original Suit No. 18 of 2022 has filed the present First Appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. Arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner/appellant:
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant while assailing the impugned judgment has taken following grounds:
(i) It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the issues have not been decided in proper manner. The learned Family court has also not considered the depositions and the documents advanced on behalf of the appellant and, as such, the judgment impugned is liable to be set aside.
(ii) It has been submitted that the court is failed to appreciate evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant and thus came to a wrong conclusion. The learned Family court has also not considered that the appellant has successfully substantiated the allegation that respondent has withdrawn herself from his society without any reasonable excuse.
(iii) It is further contended that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi has not considered the case in consonance of Section 22 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954since, from perusal of the Paragraph No.13 of the impugned judgment, it 4 F.A. No. 254 of 2024 2026:JHHC:95-DB appears that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi failed to appreciate that instant case has not been filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as indicated which goes to show that the learned Court has lightly taken the case of the appellant and erroneously passed the order.
(iv) It is further stated that Issue no.4 has been erroneously decided by the learned Family Principal Judge, Ranchi that the respondent having reasonable excuse withdrew herself from the society and company of the appellant-husband but from perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the marriage is not only the formality between the spouse but pious duty between the spouse and for small quarrel, the wife or husband cannot withdraw from the society and company of the spouse.
(v) Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the judgment impugned suffers from perversity, as such, not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the respondent-wife:
13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-wife, while defending the impugned judgment, has submitted that there is no error in the impugned judgment.
14. The learned Family Judge has considered the issue of cruelty and having come to the conclusion that respondent-wife has withdrawn herself from the society of the appellant-husband due to sufficient reason and therefore dismissed the petition.
5 F.A. No. 254 of 2024
2026:JHHC:95-DB
15. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the learned Family Court based upon the aforesaid grounds has refused to grant the restitution of conjugal right in favour of the appellant/petitioner as such the impugned judgment cannot be said to suffer from any error. Analysis:
16.This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and had gone through the record of the case as well as findings recorded by the learned Family Judge in the impugned judgment.
17.The case has been heard at length. The admitted fact herein is that the suit before the learned Family Court has been filed under Sections 22 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 for a decree of restitution of conjugal rights.
18. The evidence has been laid on behalf of both the parties.
19.For ready reference, the evidences laid on behalf of the parties are being referred as under:
(i) PW-1, Jai Prakash Oraon is petitioner himself, in his examination-
in-chief has reiterated his pleadings. In his cross-examination, he has stated that his marriage was performed in the year 2014. His first wife died in the year 1998 and there were two children out of their wedlock out of whom one died and now he has one son Karam Chand Oroan aged about 24-25 years. In his testimony he had stated that he cannot tell from where the respondent has completed her Teacher Training and B.Ed because he is not educated. He stated that he does not know that prior to his marriage with respondent his wife had qualified of M.A. and B.Ed. His wife was well acquainted that he is a Cook. He had further stated that he is permanent Cook in Police Department since the year 2014 and after marriage for 6 F.A. No. 254 of 2024 2026:JHHC:95-DB sometime he kept the respondent in the Village and thereafter he kept her in a rented house at Ranchi. He has not filed any document that respondent had blocked his mobile number on 21.03.2021. His wife is doing service since the year 2019 in Harangi School and after getting service she started living at her parental home. He had further stated that it is wrong to say that his son used to quarrel with respondent and assaulted her. He has deposed that he used to deposit amount in the account of respondent. He and his son never misbehaved with respondent and asked for money from her. He has identified the paper dated 12.05.2019 over which there is signature of his son and signature of witnesses Jogi Oraon, Reeta Oraon and Sahu which has been marked as 'Y' for identification. His wife is living at her parental home and last time he met with his wife on 13.04.2021. He has not reported the matter regarding missing of respondent in the police Station. He has also not met with the headmaster of the school where the respondent is teaching. It is wrong to say that he and his son tortured and misbehaved the respondent for money.
(ii) P.W.-2 is the brother of the petitioner, who in his examination-in- chief on affidavit, has supported the case of the petitioner. In his cross- examination, he has deposed that he is Class IV employee of Police Department since the year 2006. The marriage of his brother/petitioner was solemnized with the respondent and his brother has a son from his first wife. The respondent is graduate. He was present in the marriage of both the parties but he has not put his signature on the marriage certificate. Lastly, he has met with respondent on 14.11.2021 at that time the respondent was in service in a school. The parental home of the respondent 7 F.A. No. 254 of 2024 2026:JHHC:95-DB is situated at Bero, so, she is living there. He has deposed that no paper regarding blocking of mobile number has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. He has knowledge about the agreement dated 12.05.2019. When on 14.11 2021 he along with his brother went to bring back the respondent from her house he saw that respondent was washing clothes near a well. It is wrong to say that due to pulling of cloth by his brother the respondent fell down and she got injured. He further stated that they had gone to her Maika on 14.11.2021 and he remained seated on the motorcycle and petitioner talked with the mother of respondent. He also stated in cross- examination that respondent started living at Bero because of her job.
20.The respondent-wife and her sister have been examined as RW-1 and RW.2 respectively. For ready reference their evidence is being referred as under:
(i) Respondent-wife Sushma Toppo (R.W.-1) and Nathki Toppo (R.W-2) in their evidence stated that marriage between the petitioner and the respondent has been solemnized through Registered Marriage on 14.08.2014 and thereafter their marriage was per performed as per social customs was held on 20.07.2017. After marriage the respondent went to her matrimonial home at Kisko Lohardaga and after two days, the respondent/wife along with her appellant husband went to rented house situated behind the Police Line Ranchi. In the month of September 2018, the son and nephew of petitioner also started residing with them but behaviour of the son of petitioner towards the respondent was not good. The son of the 8 F.A. No. 254 of 2024 2026:JHHC:95-DB petitioner also stolen gold earring of the respondent, thereafter, the respondent shifted in the Hostel of Welfare Department wherein no fees are chargeable from Aadivasi Girls and the respondent has been living in the said hostel since 2006. The petitioner never stopped his son for teasing the respondent and the son of petitioner demanded money from the respondent. In this regard an agreement between the parties took place in which the petitioner undertook that his step son will not demand money and tease the respondent. The respondent after joining as Teacher came to her parental home because her school is near to her parental home. They have deposed that during holidays the petitioner used to come to the respondent, but his behaviour towards the respondent was not good and the petitioner quarreled and assaulted the respondent. In the month of June 2021, the petitioner came and tried to strangulate the respondent in sleeping condition. The petitioner also threatened to terminate respondent from her service. They deposed that on 19.10.2021 the petitioner along with an unknown person came to the house of respondent on a motorcycle, at that time the respondent was washing clothes and the petitioner tried to kill the respondent by strangulating, as such the respondent fell down, thereafter, the petitioner fled away with the person who came with him on motorcycle.
(ii) During cross-examination R.W.-1 (Respondent) has deposed that she completed her B. Ed. in the session of 2012-13 and she was appointed as teacher in Rajkiya Utkramit High School, 9 F.A. No. 254 of 2024 2026:JHHC:95-DB Harhenji in the year 2019. She has deposed that she will not compromise with her husband in the Court. Her husband has tried to strangulate her but the date of said incident is not in her memory. Since the year 2014 her husband never came to take her back and, if, her husband comes to take her back then also she will not go with him. She has not filed any case against her husband for divorce. She has deposed that marriage was also solemnized in accordance with Adivasi rites and customs. Karamchand Oraon son of petitioner from first wife never insulted her but he committed theft of her earring and threatened to kill her. She has further deposed that on the assurance of her husband she did not report the matter to Police Station. She has also deposed that she does not make any claim over the service and properties of her husband. She further stated that on 19.10.2021 petitioner had come to kill her along with his friend but she has not reported the matter to Police. She has blocked the mobile number of her husband. She also stated that she does not want to live with her husband.
(iii) During cross-examination R.W.-2 has also deposed that behaviour of the petitioner and his son was not good towards the respondent. She has deposed that respondent completed her B.Ed and other qualifications before marriage and was appointed as Teacher after marriage. She has also deposed that when Sushma (respondent) was living in rented house, the petitioner used to come to respondent. She has deposed that 10 F.A. No. 254 of 2024 2026:JHHC:95-DB respondent Sushma informed her that in the month of June 2021 the petitioner came and tried to strangulate her.
21.On the basis of the aforesaid factual aspect, it would be apt to refer herein Section 22 of Special Marriage Act 1954 (herein referred as Act 1954) which pertains to restitution of conjugal right:
22. Restitution of conjugal rights.―When either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may apply by petition to the district court for restitution of conjugal rights, and the court, on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition, and that there is no legal ground why the application should not be granted, may decree restitution of conjugal rights accordingly.
[Explanation. ―Where a question arises whether there has been reasonable excuse for withdrawal from the society, the burden of providing reasonable excuse shall be on the person who has withdrawn from the society.
22.It needs to refer herein that section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 which also pertains to the restitution of the conjugal rights is Pari Materia to Section 22 of the Act 1954. The object of restitution decree was to bring about cohabitation between the estranged parties so that they could live together in the matrimonial home in amity. The leading idea of Section 22 of Act 1954 was to preserve the marriage.
23.From perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that if either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may apply, before the court concerned, for restitution of conjugal rights and the court, on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition and further 11 F.A. No. 254 of 2024 2026:JHHC:95-DB taking into consideration the legal ground that why the application should not be granted, may decree restitution of conjugal rights accordingly.
24.Further, in explanation part of the said provision, it has been prescribed that when a question arises, whether there has been "reasonable excuse"
for withdrawal from the society, the burden of proving "reasonable excuse" shall be on the person who has withdrawn from the society.
25.It needs to refer herein that conjugal rights may be viewed in its proper perspective by keeping in mind the dictionary meaning of the expression "Conjugal" wherein the meaning of 'conjugal' as "of or pertaining to marriage or to husband and wife in their relations to each other" is given (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd Edn. Vol. I page 371).
26.In the Dictionary of English Law, 1959 Edn. at page 453, Earl Jowitt defines 'conjugal rights' thus:
"The right which husband and wife have to each other's society and marital intercourse. The suit for restitution of conjugal rights is a matrimonial suit, cognizable in the Divorce Court, which is brought whenever either the husband or the wife lives separate from the other without any sufficient reason, in which case the court will decree restitution of conjugal rights (Matrimonial Causes Act, 1950, s. 15), but will not enforce it by attachment, substituting however for attachment, if the wife be the petitioner, an order for periodical payments by the husband to the wife (s.22). Conjugal rights cannot be enforced by the act of either party, and a husband cannot seize and detain his wife by force (R.V. Jackson [1891] 1 Q.B. 671)".
27.In India, it may be borne in mind that conjugal rights, i.e., right of the husband or the wife to the society of the other spouse is not merely creature of the statute, such a right is inherent in the very institution of marriage itself. Thus, the restitution of conjugal rights is often regarded 12 F.A. No. 254 of 2024 2026:JHHC:95-DB as a matrimonial remedy. The remedy of restitution of conjugal rights is a positive remedy that requires both parties to live together and cohabit.
28.Thus, the requirement of the provisions of restitution of conjugal rights are as follows:
(i) The withdrawal by the respondent from the society of the petitioner.
(ii) The withdrawal is without any reasonable cause or excuse or lawful ground.
(iii)There should be no other legal ground for refusal of the relief.
(iv)The court should be satisfied about the truth of the statement made in the petition.
29.The Hon'ble Apex Court in the catena of judgments had discussed the scope of restitution of the conjugal right. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Suman Singh v. Sanjay Singh, (2017) 4 SCC 85 has categorically observed that when there is evidence establishing that it was respondent husband who withdrew from appellant's company without any reasonable cause, appellant is entitled to get decree for restitution of conjugal rights. For ready reference the relevant paragraphs are being quoted as under:
"24. In our considered view, as it appears to us from perusal of the evidence that it is the respondent who withdrew from the appellant's company without there being any reasonable cause to do so. Now that we have held on facts that the respondent failed to make out any case of cruelty against the appellant, it is clear to us that it was the respondent who withdrew from the company of the appellant without reasonable cause and not the vice versa.
13 F.A. No. 254 of 2024
2026:JHHC:95-DB
25. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals succeed and are allowed. The impugned judgment [Suman Singh v. Sanjay Singh, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 2138 : (2013) 136 DRJ 107] is set aside. As a result, the petition filed by the respondent (husband) under Section 13(1) of the Act seeking dissolution of marriage is dismissed. As a consequence thereof, the marriage between the parties is held to subsist whereas the petition filed by the appellant against the respondent under Section 9 of the Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights is allowed. A decree for restitution of conjugal rights is, accordingly, passed against the respondent.
26. We hope and trust that the parties would now realise their duties and obligations against each other as also would realise their joint obligations as mother and father towards their grown up daughters. Both should, therefore, give a quiet burial to their past deeds/acts and bitter experiences and start living together and see that their daughters are well settled in their respective lives. Such reunion, we feel, would be in the interest of all family members in the long run and will bring peace, harmony and happiness. We find that the respondent is working as a "Caretaker" in the Government Department (see Para 4 of his petition). He must, therefore, be the "Caretaker" of his own family that being his first obligation and at the same time attend to his government duties to maintain his family."
30.Thus, on the basis of aforesaid settled position of law, it is evident that the court will grant a decree for restitution of conjugal rights when one spouse has withdrawn from the other's society without reasonable excuse. This means if a husband or wife leaves the marital home or refuses to live with their spouse without a justifiable reason, the other spouse can file petition before the court for its remedy. The court, if satisfied with the truth of the petition and finding no legal barrier, may order the withdrawing spouse to return and resume cohabitation.
31.Now coming to factual aspect of the instant case that it is evident from the testimonies and evidence available on record that the wife (respondent herein) since beginning always tried her best to lead happy 14 F.A. No. 254 of 2024 2026:JHHC:95-DB conjugal life but due to compelling circumstances, the respondent wife unwillingly had left matrimonial house.
32.Further, from perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the learned Family Judge has also taken into consideration the aforesaid factual aspect as well as settled proposition of law related to the restitution of conjugal right, which would be evident from some paragraphs of the impugned judgment, for ready reference, the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under:
"11. From the evidence adduced on behalf of both the sides it appears both the parties are legally married husband and wife. There is no child out of their wedlock. It transpires from the case record that the marriage of the petitioner with respondent is second marriage. The petitioner has a son Karamchand Oraon from his first wife (now dead) who is aged about 25 years. The respondent after marriage went to her matrimonial home situated at Kisko, District Lohardaga but during stay at matrimonial home behaviour of the son of petitioner was not good towards the respondent. He committed theft of ear ring of the respondent and threatened to shoot her. Thereafter, the petitioner executed an agreement on 12.05.2019 that his son Karamchand Oraon will neither demand a single penny from his wife Sushma nor would claim over her properties either in his life time or after his death (Ext.1) which suggests that the respondent has apprehension of her life and limb in her matrimonial home. The respondent admitted that after marriage she was appointed as Teacher in a Government High School situated near her parental home at Bero, so, she shifted in her parental home and started living there. The respondent and his witnesses have deposed that the petitioner used to come to respondent but his behaviour was not good towards the respondent. He tried to strangulate the respondent. The respondent during cross-examination has deposed that on 19.10.2021 the petitioner along with his friend had come to kill her. The respondent has also deposed in her cross-examination that she will not make any type of claim over the property of her husband (petitioner). The respondent in cross-examination also stated that petitioner treats her like a drum and says that she should be beaten. 15 F.A. No. 254 of 2024
2026:JHHC:95-DB
12. So, from perusal of entire evidence and material available on the record I find that though respondent is living separately from petitioner but she has not voluntarily deserted the petitioner. The petitioner never took any sincere effort to bring back the respondent and resume his conjugal life. The respondent has not shown her willingness to lead her conjugal life with petitioner. She cannot be compelled to live with her husband (petitioner). The respondent is a Government Teacher capable to maintain herself. The respondent has categorically stated that she will not make any claim over the property of her husband during her life time. The petitioner appears to have continuously ill-treated and tortured the respondent. She wants divorce from the petitioner, as such, she cannot be compelled to lead conjugal life with the petitioner. The petitioner himself has not been able to establish that without any reasonable excuse the respondent has withdrawn herself from his society.
13. In a case u/s 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, it is the duty of the petitioner to establish that he has been deserted by respondent without any reasonable cause and when petitioner succeeds the onus shifts on the deserting spouse to show that there is reasonable cause. In the present case petitioner has himself failed to discharge his initial burden and in view of the evidences referred above, It is apparent that the respondent-wife Sushma Toppo has withdrawn herself from the society of her husband/petitioner Jai Prakash Oraon due to sufficient reasons."
33.Thus, from the aforesaid paragraphs of the impugned order it is evident that the learned Family Court while passing the order impugned has taken care of the evidence of both the parties and further the learned court has also taken note of the core of section 22 of the Act 1954 which is pari metria to the Section 9 of the Act 1955.
34.Herein the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner has argued that since the learned Family Court has not properly appreciated the evidences available on record as also has not properly considered the testimony of the witnesses and has passed the order impugned without 16 F.A. No. 254 of 2024 2026:JHHC:95-DB taking into consideration the mandate of the Section 22 of the Act 1954 and, as such, the impugned judgment suffers from perversity, hence, not sustainable in the eyes of law.
35.This Court, while appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant on the issue of perversity needs to refer herein the interpretation of the word "perverse" as has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court, which means that there is no evidence or erroneous consideration of the evidence.
36.The Hon'ble Apex Court in Arulvelu and Anr. vs. State [Represented by the Public Prosecutor] and Anr., (2009) 10 SCC 206 while elaborately discussing the word perverse has held that it is, no doubt, true that if a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then, the finding is rendered infirm in law. Relevant paragraphs, i.e., paras-24, 25, 26 and 27 of the said judgment, read as under:
"24. The expression "perverse" has been dealt with in a number of cases. In Gaya Din v. Hanuman Prasad [(2001) 1 SCC 501] this Court observed that the expression "perverse" means that the findings of the subordinate authority are not supported by the evidence brought on record or they are against the law or suffer from the vice of procedural irregularity.
25. In Parry's (Calcutta) Employees' Union v. Parry & Co. Ltd. [AIR 1966 Cal 31] the Court observed that "perverse finding" means a finding which is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence itself. In Triveni Rubber & Plastics v. CCE [1994 Supp (3) SCC 665 : AIR 1994 SC 1341] the Court observed that this is not a case where it can be said that the findings 17 F.A. No. 254 of 2024 2026:JHHC:95-DB of the authorities are based on no evidence or that they are so perverse that no reasonable person would have arrived at those findings.
26. In M.S. Narayanagouda v. Girijamma [AIR 1977 Kant 58] the Court observed that any order made in conscious violation of pleading and law is a perverse order. In Moffett v. Gough [(1878) 1 LR 1r 331] the Court observed that a "perverse verdict" may probably be defined as one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence. In Godfrey v. Godfrey [106 NW 814] the Court defined "perverse" as turned the wrong way, not right; distorted from the right; turned away or deviating from what is right, proper, correct, etc.
27. The expression "perverse" has been defined by various dictionaries in the following manner:
1. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English, 6th Edn.
"Perverse.--Showing deliberate determination to behave in a way that most people think is wrong, unacceptable or unreasonable."
2. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, International Edn. Perverse.--Deliberately departing from what is normal and reasonable.
3. The New Oxford Dictionary of English, 1998 Edn. Perverse.--Law (of a verdict) against the weight of evidence or the direction of the judge on a point of law.
4. The New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (Deluxe Encyclopedic Edn.) Perverse.--Purposely deviating from accepted or expected behavior or opinion; wicked or wayward; stubborn; cross or petulant.
5. Stroud's Judicial Dictionary of Words & Phrases, 4th Edn.
"Perverse.--A perverse verdict may probably be defined as one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence."
18 F.A. No. 254 of 2024
2026:JHHC:95-DB
37.This Court has already observed in preceding paragraphs that learned Family Court while passing the order impugned has taken care of the evidence of both the parties and further the learned court has also taken note of the fact that the petitioner has solemnized marriage with respondent wife and there is danger of her life by the hands of petitioner/appellant and this apprehension of respondent seems to be quite reasonable in the facts and circumstances of this case, as such, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there is element of perversity in the impugned order is totally fallacious.
38.This Court, based upon the aforesaid discussions, is of the view that the appellant has failed to establish the element of perversity in the impugned judgment as per the discussions made hereinabove, as such, the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed.
39.Thus, on the basis of the discussions made hereinabove, this Court, therefore, is of the view that the judgment dated 05.11.2024 [decree signed on 16.11.2024] passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in Original Suit No. 18 of 2022 requires no interference.
40.Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.
41.Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Jharkhand High Court Dated: 05.01.2026 KNR/A.F.R. Uploaded On: 12/01/2026 19 F.A. No. 254 of 2024